Running head: ARTIFACT #6 KAREN WHITE V.

BOARD OF EDUCATION 1

Cecilia Noorda

Artifact #6

EDU 210

March 5, 2018
ARTIFACT #6 KAREN WHITE V. BOARD OF EDUCATION 2

Karen White, a kindergarten teacher, recently became a Jehovah’s Witness. Because of

this, she informed her students and their parents that there would be changes in the classroom.

For example, she could no longer lead certain activities or participate in certain projects that

were religious in nature. She also could not decorate the classroom for holidays and couldn’t

plan gift exchanges for Christmas. She couldn’t sing “Happy Birthday” or say the Pledge of

Allegiance. Parents were upset with these changes and complained to the school principle, Bill

Ward. Ward suggested a dismissal, based on the idea that she could no longer meet the needs of

her students.

Using certain cases, the court may decide that Wards decision to dismiss White is

unconstitutional. Using the case of West Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette would

help the case solidify their decision. In this case, a school in West Virginia adopted the rule that

students and teachers were required to salute the flag and recite the Pledge of Allegiance flag

(West Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette, 1943) . If students or teachers did not do so,

it was seen as insubordination, and could be suspended. The Court ultimately ruled that the

Boards actions were unconstitutional, as Jehovah Witnesses are forbidden by religion to honor

the flag. Similarly, Wards decision to dismiss White for being unable to participate in certain

activities is unconstitutional. This is because it would violate her right to practice religion.

Another case that may support Karen white is Wisconsin v Yoder, which uses the Free

Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to support their statements. In this case, Jonas Yoder

and Wallace Miller, members of the Old Order Amish religion, and Adin Yutzy, a member of the

Conservative Amish Mennonite Church, were prosecuted under a law that required children to

attend school until they were sixteen (Wisconsin v Yoder, 1972). However, the three parents

contradicted this law, saying that sending their children to school after the eighth grade was
ARTIFACT #6 KAREN WHITE V. BOARD OF EDUCATION 3

contrary to their religious beliefs. Similarly, Karen White is also a Jehovah Witness, and her

religion does not allow her to participate in certain activities. If the school were to punish her for

not being able to participate in such activities, it would actually be infringing on her religious

rights.

On the other hand, the court may rule in favor of the Board of Education and dismiss

White. They may use Florey v Sioux Falls School District to support the board. In this case, the

Court claimed that the study and performance of religious songs, and Christmas songs, were

constitutional in the classroom. This is only if the purpose of the songs is the “advancement of

students’ knowledge of society’s cultural and religious heritage” (Florey V. Sioux Falls School

District, 1980). Therefore, Karen White should be able to participate in such activities as long as

the reason is for the “advancement of students’ knowledge of society’s cultural and religious

heritage.” This way, Karen is not completely neglecting her students needs. However, if she

continues to neglect her students needs, then the principal is correct to dismiss her.

Similarly, the case of Clever v Cherry Hill Tp. Board of Education may be used to

support the principal’s decision. In this case, the Court decided that it is permissible for public

schools to display religious holiday symbols in schools as long as it is absent of denominational

preference (Clever v Cherry Hill Tp. Bd. Of Educ., 1993). Similarly, the principle of Karen

White wants to ensure that his students needs are being met. It is not permissible for White to

take away the student’s rights to the access of religious holiday information. Therefore, Karen

White must allow religious activities in her classroom, as long as they are for educational

purposes.

In conclusion, the principal recommended White’s dismissal on the basis that she is

ineffectively meeting the needs of her students. I believe that this was a justifiable basis for
ARTIFACT #6 KAREN WHITE V. BOARD OF EDUCATION 4

Karen’s dismissal. While White does have the free exercise of religion right, I believe that it does

not mean she can stop performing her teacher duties to the best of her ability. Just like in the case

of Florey V. Sioux Falls School District, the court upheld that the “advancement of students’

knowledge of society’s cultural and religious heritage” is also important. This means that White

can still teach certain activities and participate in religion without going against her religious

beliefs. As a teacher, it is your responsibility to teach ones students to the best of ones abilities,

and I do not believe that Karen White is doing so. Therefore, I agree that her dismissal was

justifiable.
ARTIFACT #6 KAREN WHITE V. BOARD OF EDUCATION 5

References

Florey v. SIOUX FALLS SCH. DIST. 49-5, 464 F. Supp. 911 (D.S.D. 1979). (n.d.). Retrieved

March 05, 2018, from https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-

courts/FSupp/464/911/1520042/

Clever v. Cherry Hill. (n.d.). Retrieved March 05, 2018, from

http://www.belcherfoundation.org/clever_v_cherry_hill.htm

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved March 5, 2018, from

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/319us624

Wisconsin v. Yoder. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved March 5, 2018, from

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1971/70-110